What if?

[InsaneApache]

Let's play a little game. Speculation.

What do you guys think would have happened had the 13 colonies lost the war for independence? Would there have been more rebellions until the colonists won? Perhaps they could have acheived nationhood later on like Canada and the Antipodes.

Would or could 'Manifest Destiny' have occured, given that the King had every intention of upholding his treaties with the indiginous population? If it hadn't have happened, would Spain have closed in to fill the vacuum?

What would the repercussions have been a centuary or so later, vis-a-vis WW I, or WW II?

Would the two world wars have happened at all?

Thanks.

[KarlXII]

Defeat in the Revolution:

Leaders hung as traitors, soldiers captured more than likely executed. Stricter laws enforced, possibly a new rebellion.

I can't quite say how it would affect the future, as "What if?" 's are all speculation. For all we know, France could have stopped Revolution, grow to be the biggest superpower, than invade the moon. All guess work, really.

[Maximus The Bruce]

Dang American subjects we had!


I think they would have rose up again during the World Wars. Sooner or later they would have broke off from us.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Vermont would never be defeated and thus would exist as a thorn in the UK's side, until the UK were finally weakened and demoralized enough that Vermonters conquered the rest of the continental US and maybe a bit of Canadaland. The US would be a more woodsy and progressive place today.

[Megas Methuselah]

Dang American subjects we had!


I think they would have rose up again during the World Wars. Sooner or later they would have broke off from us.

Well, Great Britain managed to hold on to their patriotic French subjects in Quebec. If they can do that, then why not a few Yankees, as well?

[Incongruous]

I expect that once scoundrels like Washington, Adams and Franklin had been executed, the rebellion would have lost its bluster, since that's what it was, at the start anyway, a group of well spoken men with a grudge against British attempts to curtail certain activities.
I doubt it would have occured again, you don't get men with Franlin's abilities every century, and the taxes imposed by the Crown were pithy and not worth the trouble of a bloody nose.

[Ibrahim]

well, whatever would have happened to the colonies on defeat is something we can't be 100% sure of, aside perhaps from the mass hangings of the "ringleaders", but no they wouldn't really have hung the average troops-don't be silly. IIRC, the king and parliment thought that there were "ringleaders" that inspired the "mob" to action. In other words, as far as the King an parliment thought, the masses were unimportant. Simply cut off the "head", and the rest fall quiet. but to their cost, the colonials did not really have any real leaders, nor were they goaded to rebellion by anything resembling a ringleader group, instead being decentralized in nature-something many forget about the revolution. Just look at the revolutionary campaigns: New York, Saratoga, Philedelphia, and the south. all aimed to "excise" the powers to be, and all failed.

but you have to admit, the painful lessons learned influenced Britain arguably for the better; a changed army, a new way of dealing with the clonies it still had.

EDIT: a good read is paul revere's ride, by David hackett Fischer. granted, it only concerns the events leading up to, and including, the famous rides, and their aftermath. But his book carefully explores the motivation of the revolutionaries in detail, at least until late 1776.

[PanzerJaeger]

Interesting.

I think a lot of it would depend on what kind of peace the British laid down after their victory.

The natural choice would have been to increase taxes and other dues to pay for the war, seize lands and properties of the rebels, strengthen their martial grip on the colonies, and otherwise punish the traitors. This, of course, would quickly lead to another war or string of wars; and each year that the population of the colonies grew (much of said growth consisting of peoples having never had loyalty to the Crown or even Britain), it would be increasingly costly and difficult for the British to hold them.

The smart choice would have been to make the standards for repatriation low and easily achievable, grant the colonies slightly more autonomy on a local level, and maybe even lower taxes a bit - as if to say "We're in charge, but we hear you and want to do our best to satisfy all British citizens". If such a gentle path were taken, the chance of the US going the way of Canada and Australia would be much greater - although there were those on the extreme in the US that would never be satisfied under British rule. Many fail to realize that the Revolution was just as much a civil war as it was a popular rebellion, and there was still much loyalty to crown and country in the colonies. I've read some estimations that put the number of loyalists far greater than that of the rebels, though they were, of course, far more passive. More cabable British leadership could have taken better advantage of the situation I would think.

Manifest Destiny would have most likely occurred whether the king allowed it or not - possibly leading to independent states such as Texas and California were for a time. Regardless of the technicalities, natural law dictates that the strong will overcome the weak. Thus, the natives' days were numbered.

Also, I think the US - in whatever capacity ranging from being a fully independent nation to a member of the Commonwealth - would have naturally come in line with the Franco-British alliance during the World Wars of the 20th Century.

[InsaneApache]

Thanks PJ for that. I think what you say is insightful and has a lot of sense.

Richard Holmes did a very illuminating series on the BBC a few years ago, worth a watch if can get it.

He says that the British learned a painful lesson from losing the colonies (thier own citizens??) and applied that to the British Empire as we know it. In other words a more enlightened empire* was formed because of this experience.

*as empires go.

[Brandy Blue]

I think the key point here is demographics. Europe's population was growing too fast and Europe could not support the excess population. They had to go somewhere. The Native population was being reduced by European diseases, so there was somewhere for the extra Europeans to go. Of course not all the Natives died, so Europeans used force, and someone had to find an excuse so they could go on feeling good about themselves. Some form of Manifest Destiny would have happened, with or without independence. Perhaps the Natives would have gained some time, but that is all.

By the same logic, the population and economy of America would expand to the point where the colonies would be more important than Britan, and there would be more and more non-British Americans. Either the British government would lose control, or they would have to reach an accomodation with the Americans giving them most of what they wanted, which would amount to almost the same thing as independence.

Beyond that, it is all speculation. I can see two basic paths.

1: The colonies gain independence by force at a later date. They are strong enough to keep European powers from interfering in America. (Spain was a spent force anyway.) Things go much the way they did in real life - perhaps.

2: Britan manages to keep some sort of nominal rule. The colonies do not have a common (British) threat to face, and so the colonies remain politically independent of each other (no United States). Because the colonies are divided, Britan remains very significant as the glue that keeps them together (and hopefully from each others' throats). Also, the crown provides the colonial governments with their basis for legitimacy, which enhances governmental loyalty to Britan.
Economic ties and resulting prosperity also increase loyalty.

Its really too hard to guess about the World Wars. Maybe they never would have happened, because Austria and Germany would be too scared to take on Russia, France, Italy, Britan and America at the same time. Then again, a case can be made that World War I was not started intentionally, and the same mistakes that caused it would have occurred. I think we can assume that it would have gone differently if the “American colonies” had entered the war from the start, unlike the real United States, which entered later. The Austro-German alliance would have been overwhelmed by sheer man power and industrial capacity. Demographics again. If the allies had triumphed earlier in WWI with fewer losses, they might have been less furious, and made a more lenient peace treaty. Perhaps the Germans would then have been less angry too, and the Nazis would never have got very far, and WWII would not have occurred. Who knows?

[Strike For The South]

More than likely my great x8 grandfather would've been hung and there would be no me.

And no one wants that.

[InsaneApache]

I'm not sure if you're boasting about you x8 grandads endowment, or if you meant hanged.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not sure if you're boasting about you x8 grandads endowment, or if you meant hanged.

This is another side effect of independence. My sentence is grammatically correct.

[Cute Wolf]

If the colonies are defeated, the King would still be impressed by the Franklin's ability, and adopt him instead of hanging him, and let him spare his comrades. Then, to stop the bloody colonials for revolting again, His Majesty decide to cede the 13 colony for Franklin's own kingdom. Franklin would be forced to accept the American crown, and there was no US, the nation is "Kingdom of Benjamin Franklin"


(I heard he's a member of Royal Society of Science or somewhat)

[Brenus]

As said before, all would have been depending of the terms of the Defeat of the Insurgents. And would have been the terms for peace with France?

The King George was able to sign with the new USA a separate Peace Treaty, but if the US side would have been defeated, the UK would still have to deal with France.
To carry on the war would have be a menace for India, when the French were doing good progress. The Louisiana was still French, and Louis the XVI, unlike his grand-Father Louis the XV had interest in over sea territories.

We can imagine the leaders of the Insurgents, shipped to France or to a French territory, creating a Provisional Government, and starting a guerrilla war on the British, sending spies and agents in Quebec, recently occupied by the English with French courreurs des bois along side American rangers sneaking through the forests and cutting Red Coats necks…